Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy1999  I'm hoping she will, I don't know the law that well, but I don't think she has to prove that she didn't do it, or even that it happened another way. Don't they just have to poke holes in the prosecuting attorney’s story, as in reasonable doubt? I think she really wants to testify, but most lawyers would never recommend it. She seems so narcissistic and egotistical and has been such a successful liar in the past, that I think, she thinks, she can convince the jury.
One thing that bugs me about her defense is that she saying she’s a liar because of the alleged molestation in the past, yet we’re supposed to believe her now? |
I don't think she has to testify, but if I was serving on the jury I would have a hard time buying a theory of drowning and abuse that an attorney throws out, then no testimony or evidence to support it.
It seems to me once you bring up what happened, you need to back it up it to be believable.
I heard that she was googling about a shots party or something the day she claims that her daughter drowned. I've not been able to watch first hand. Did that get entered into court?
I mean seriously, how does someone google about a party, go to a party on the day your child drowned??
I also read her diary entry that she wrote days after Caylee was gone about being happy. Bizarre.